Guest The Chief Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 In writing a paraphrase, the writer (and publisher) MAY have as an excuse "we didn't quite understand what a particular verse said, so we did the best we could with what we had." In writing such a travesty as this, the writer (AND publisher) have absolutely no such escape, as even the more recent of the ancient writings used for translational purposes are quite clear on gender-differentiation. It seems (from what little was posted on the news site) that the writer simply exchanged "Judith" for "Jesus," with no listed authority or documentation to support their outrageous claim. P.Oxy.2, a papyrus fragment dating at least 100 years earlier than the Codex Vaticanus, for example, clearly mentions the manner of birth of "Jesus Christ," not "Judith Christ" (Matthew 1:18). Likewise, P.Oxy.208, a portion of John 1:23-31 is quite clear on the gender of our Lord (The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.) Maybe it is time for the "translators" who worked on this fairy tale go back to school for remedial Greek, and the publishers depart from the "Edward Kennedy School of Liberal Publishing." They need to stop tickling the ears of the reader and set forth the truth, for a change! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayin jade Posted June 3, 2005 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 44 Topic Count: 6,178 Topics Per Day: 0.88 Content Count: 43,795 Content Per Day: 6.21 Reputation: 11,243 Days Won: 58 Joined: 01/03/2005 Status: Offline Author Share Posted June 3, 2005 I dont think they were aiming for an accurate translation, only a translation that met their particular view point. They had no qualms changing the bible to fit what they wanted. Their motivation: "This long-awaited revised text of the Gospels makes the moral message of Christ more accessible to many, and more illuminating to all," says Billie Shakespeare, V.P. for the publisher. "It is empowering. We published this new Bible to acknowledge the rise of women in society." Amazon.com lists thepublisher as L B I Law & Business Institute. I cant find any information on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yomotalking Posted June 3, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 154 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2,838 Content Per Day: 0.40 Reputation: 19 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/18/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/29/1991 Share Posted June 3, 2005 It's not just sickening, it lowers Jesus' Holy Status down so, so much. It's blasphemy, indeed. I cannot imagine somebody really buying this junk !!! I would hate to read it. I think it's absolutely mad. Hey! I know! Why not just stick with the good ol' King James, eh? Yomo (the sickened) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFaceInTheCrowd Posted June 3, 2005 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 134 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 1,138 Content Per Day: 0.34 Reputation: 9 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/26/2015 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/16/1969 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Obtuse Monkey Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005   What joke? <{POST_SNAPBACK}>  In a thread about the blaspheme of changing Jesus to Judith, WhySoBlind changes Israel to America. It's pretty subtly done. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I was merely comparing Israel's sin to America's sin. Not making any claim regarding a special national calliong or something like that. I don't see what your point is, other than to create some sort of confusion on this thread.. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I didn't intend to cause confusion; I honestly thought it was a joke. I couldn't see why, after making a comment about what you call "Solomon Syndrome" you'd make a serious comparison such as that. If it's looked at on it's own, exclusively as a point about sins mentioned in those chapters in Ezekiel, I can see that it works as a serious point. I have to say, it was hilarious at the time.  Well this is what happens when we compromise the Word of GOD.We have had tons of new translations.It's like a trend anymore.Every group that claims to be Christian wants a Bible for themselves and the world has complied.This is the reason I'm a King James "onlyist" Bible reader . When is enough enough? <{POST_SNAPBACK}>  The reason there are lots of new translations is that the language is so different, and often can be misunderstood, or meanings can be lost in translation. If your serious about looking at the Bible without anyone putting a personal mark upon it through tanslation, then I would suggest learning ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek fluently. Apparently a lot of it rhymes and is in meter and things, which is pretty cool. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So how many english translations do we need? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't think it will ever translate perfectly into English. However, to stick with a King James Bible won't give you as accurate translations on some parts as in others. The important ideas are all in there (like how to treat people (love thy neighbour)). I try to keep mine up to date, since I spend a lot of time around non Christians, and it's useful to have something that is more accessible (translated into modern English). If you want to compare translations look at http://www.biblegateway.com/ I know it didn't answer the question, but I hope you found it helpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IreneM Posted June 3, 2005 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 80 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 700 Content Per Day: 0.10 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/12/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted June 3, 2005 On the day of judgement stand back and see the wrath of the Lord Womens rights groups are rejoiceing and Satan but that is about it what a disservice to the Lord God Almighty and all christians who truly love the Lord In Christ IreneM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted June 3, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.76 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.95 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Plain and simple - this "Bible" is for ultra-Feminists. Hmm . . . I wonder how they deal with the "wives submit to your husbands" verse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrs Posted June 3, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 45 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 2,081 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 53 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/13/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted June 3, 2005 it probably says husbands submit to your wives in this version Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angels4u Posted June 3, 2005 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 56 Topic Count: 1,664 Topics Per Day: 0.20 Content Count: 19,764 Content Per Day: 2.38 Reputation: 12,164 Days Won: 28 Joined: 08/22/2001 Status: Offline Share Posted June 3, 2005 ... like Judith (whose name in Hebrew means "Jewess" or "female Judean"). ... book of Judith (found in the Apocrypha in the Catholic Bible) is similar to ... I wondered where they did get the name Judith....... Its unbelieveble shocking a Bible like this coming to the stores , but it doesn't suprise me, I exept anyday a new Bible which tells us that homosexuality is no sin. We're heading to the end Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RGR Posted June 4, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 512 Topics Per Day: 0.07 Content Count: 8,601 Content Per Day: 1.13 Reputation: 125 Days Won: 2 Joined: 07/16/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/04/1973 Share Posted June 4, 2005 it probably says husbands submit to your wives in this version <{POST_SNAPBACK}> but not before the man changes his last name! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts